pfb2t1c and cm-super (was: Effect of Replaces in coexisting packages)
Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Die, 13 Sep 2005, Ralf Stubner wrote:
>
>> BTW, I also think that the facotr of two size reduction provided by
>> pfb2t1c is worth keeping. Of course, the real solution would be to
>>
>
> The problem I saw, but please correct me, is that with this version
> where the actual pfb fonts are created at install time from this
> special file, is that the created fonts are *not* under debians dpkg
> control. So other packages can overwrite, delete, remove whatever do
> with them. Also, we could probably overwrite files installed by other
> packages (if they install the files with same names in the same
> directory).
The second issue shouldn't be a problem, as one could check in postinst
that no files are overwritten. But of course, having the files under
dpkg control is desireable.
I am not experienced enough with deb packaging to know a clean solution
for this. However, would it make sense to ship some sort of dummy file
plus links pointing to this dummy file instead of the pfb files? In
postinst, these links are removed and replaced with the actual pfb
files. No idea if something like that would be 'legal'.
Another possibility, which goes way beyond Debian packaging but sounds
interesting anyway, would be to add a mktexpfb (or extend mktexpk) such
that pfb files can be created from the compressed t1c files at run time,
just as mf/tfm/pk/... files are created now.
[...]
> If you can give me other good reasons why we should keep it, I will
> do it, no problem, quick done.
Size is the only reason I can come up with. I do think a factor of two
is worth keeping in principle, but not if it increases to complexity of
the package to much.
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: